alecdbrooks
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
I guess I find it hard to take your claims seriously until you explain why you've concluded the author wants to enact her tastes into law rather than just discuss them.
>People find "careless" designs interesting.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It just that in some (many?) cases, careless designs are less likely to be widely appealing or stand up to scrutiny.
[0]: http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148836824926/man-i-love...
This is a straw man. The author isn't against interesting designs, just careless ones. And interpreting this article as a advocating authoritarianism is reading a lot into it.
If so, I'm in projektir's camp. I often feel better after exercising, but sometimes I feel worse. Also, I don't necessarily see a clear day-to-day improvement.
There are definite health benefits to exercise for most people [0], but I don't think subjectively feeling better is necessarily as widespread as some exercise proponents think.
[0]: Video summary of the evidence for exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBBjynBpSw
The Guardian does do native advertising [0], and I find their labeling policy unclear. This case study [1] by their native advertising division, Guardian Labs, highlights videos that are very clearly labeled [2] but also an article [3] that doesn't seem to be. Their policy on commercial content [4] seems to suggest that everything is clearly labeled, but at least in this case they either didn't follow it or ignored the distinctions in the case study.
[0]: http://www.adweek.com/news/press/guardians-unusual-take-nati...
[1]: http://guardianlabs.theguardian.com/projects/silent-circle-t...
[2]: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ng-interactive/2015...
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/guardian-...
[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content-funding
And even if you know you're working too long, you might not feel empowered to do something about it. This could be because you literally don't have the power—your employer requires everyone to work unreasonable hours—or because you lack the confidence or skills to use it.
—Adults more likely to work, even five years later.
—Children are healthier and get more education.
—Adults do not spend the extra money on things like alcohol or tobacco.
—Adults make significantly more when surveyed years after receiving the cash grant.
GiveWell, which has spent a lot of effort evaluating GiveDirectly, does have some lingering concerns [1] that programs like GiveDirectly's might worsen inflation or hurt people who don't receive a grant and live nearby. Research on these questions isn't conclusive, but suggests some minor, short-term effects. I suspect broadening programs to more recipients will mitigate the latter problem.
[0]: https://givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers
[1]: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas...
Update: Fixed formatting and added to final paragraph.
I don't think this example is convincing. There are too many languages to expect arbitrary pairings to combine well. (Not to mention the fact that googling "java ruby" returns JRuby, which apparently lets you do just what you describe.)
I do agree with your last point: Even when we look at similar languages, like Python and Ruby, we don't declare one a winner, generally.
Twitter: @alecbrooks
alecbrooks.net